The UN can be, like Obama, both corrupt and ineffective, and diabolically genius at the same time. The rich can be corrupt plutocrats who purchase government wholesale, and an oppressed minority who desperately need tax cuts, all at the same time. Conservative thinking requires no logical connection between its premises.
No, "the market" is not designed or centrally planned. Individual businesses are. It makes no sense to say that, because the components of a system are designed, the system itself is.
Who said we have a pure free market? That isn't even the point. We don't have is a centrally planned economy entirely designed by an intelligent designer. Something far more complex than a human can evolve from much simpler beginnings, and the way the economy has evolved is very similar to the way other complex systems have evolved.
You chose a poor example. We haven't had a real free market here for decades after finding out the hard way that they're bullshit.
Whatever we do have here is in no way a centralized, planned economy, so it is not a bad example at all, especially considering the fact that fundamentalist Christians tend to be die hard supporters of the free market.
The steel industry had Andrew Carnegie, who put a lot of effort into developing it but did not 'plan' the industry. And even if we stretch the definition of "planned" to include Carnegie's work in the steel industry, it is obvious that no one planned the entire economy.
The point being, of course, that the economy evolves over time, and while a steel industry or an Internet might be crucial for where we are now, it was obviously not crucial back then. Other things took the place of steel. The steel industry developed to the point that it could take over those functions and do them better, and then it expanded into functions that didn't even exist before it developed.
The evolution of the economy works in a similar fashion to other forms of evolution, and demonstrates all the same principles that render 'specified complexity' a laughable concept in biological evolution.
As an added bonus, people who dispute evolution are almost always strong supporters of a free market and adamantly opposed to the idea of a centrally planned economy. So this analogy (which I WISH I could take credit for) is the perfect tool for making their little heads explode.
Well obviously the Illuminati control the free market if they are the ones who designed and created it full blown as we see it today. Complete with Internet and cell phones, because obviously the economy of today can not function without those. Busy guys, those Illuminati.
If by unimpressed you mean terrified...
on
7-Inch iPad Rumored
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Too bad she will still be unimpressed by the hamster-sized organ between your legs.
The common hamster can grow to a size of fourteen inches in length, three inches across, and can weigh up to a pound.
Obviously, by your logic, a free market economy is impossible, Our economy is too complex to have evolved on its own. In fact, it is far more complex, with far more different parts, than a human being. It must have had a creator. If most any part of the economy, like the steel industry, say, were removed, the economy would not function. How did the economy function before there was a steel industry? Obviously, it couldn't, and therefore we have demonstrated irreducible specificated complexification or something.
All this free market talk is obvious bullshit, and we actually DO have a centrally planned economy because it is impossible for something so complex to have evolved without a central planner.
[Dr. Evil.] No, Mr. Powers, I expect you to die. Even after they pay me the money, I'm still going to melt every city on the planet with hot soupy magm, er, plasma. Release the preschoolers! Mr. Powers, you'll notice that all the preschoolers have laser beams attached to their heads...
I still maintain that Google has sold out to Verizon, that Google has no intention of EVER perusing network neutrality, and that Google does not give a rat's ass about net neutrality of any sort now that they own their own net.
Just think about all that wireless spectrum Google bought... and now they don't want wireless net neutrality. What a shocker!
You are not going to change my mind on this, and no one else is reading this thread anymore. You can keep on worshiping your corporate master, I'm sure they are not like any other corporation out there, and actually intend to keep their promise to do no evil. I'll be over here pointing out when people are being dishonest, selfish dicks.
So you are touting capitulation as a strategy? Because if we capitulate right at the beginning, it makes the fight easier? Good reasoning, that will surely get us wireless network neutrality someday.
But Google has provided reasons for not supporting wireless network neutrality, which means we will have to find arguments proving those reasons invalid. Google has played right into Verizon's hand on this one, providing them with ammunition in the fight.
Google has provided reasons for not supporting wireless network neutrality, and this reasoning will need to be overcome if we are to achieve it in the future. Google has hurt the cause.
No, because Google has provided reasons for not supporting wireless network neutrality, and they will have to argue against the rationalizations they have provided in the future if they want it.
Because they have provided reasons for not supporting it. Even if they change their mind now, they will have to explain why their previous reasoning is invalid.
Yes, but I disagree with their reasoning. In fact, we have more reason to cover wireless network neutrality. It is going to be a far larger market, it is a highly protected market without much real competition, and it operates over the public airwaves, over which the citizens of United States have undisputed authority. We have reason to regulate it, and authority to do so.
They did more than just say they won't address it now. They gave reasons for not addressing it, reasons that will form the precedent for not ever covering wireless network neutrality. If we accept their reasoning now, we have accepted it for all time.
No. Because Google has a lot of employees and fans who will support whatever legislation they propose, it is important that Google propose the right legislation. Google has now proposed legislation that does not cover wireless network neutrality. Wireless network neutrality is at least as important as wired. My fight just got harder.
What the jabberwocky said. Google said they would support legislation covering wireless network neutrality, and this piece of proposed legislation that they now support does not cover wireless network neutrality.
Google has a lot of employees and fans who will support whatever legislation they propose, so it is important they support the right legislation.
This isn't just some Google/Verizon deal, it is proposed legislation the two will be bringing before Congress. Google was pushing for complete neutrality on all networks, but now, Verizon has convinced them to back off. We do not yet have ANY network neutrality, which is why we need the legislation. This proposal does nothing by itself. It is a proposed piece of legislation, and thanks to Google caving in to Verizon, the proposal has been gutted of one of it's most important protections.
You may be happy to accept any handouts your corporate masters give you, but I will fight for legislation that protects my rights and interests.
It's right in the summary: "However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now,"
Google has agreed to Verizon's wishes, and Verizon does NOT want net neutrality. Meaning that, "for now" Google will not be supporting legislation to enact network neutrality for wireless networks. It's really very clear.
Okay, then what do you call it when someone says they support something, and then later they say they don't? Because whatever you call that, that's what Google is doing.
Courts can not make laws, without regulation, courts have no standing to prosecute. Contracts only protect the signatories, they do not prevent negative externalities. Competition does nothing to regulate business behaviors that are detrimental to society, in fact, it increases such behaviors as competitors screw over citizens in order to 'win.'
I will be satisfied with regulation that does what I want it to. If I do not get it, I will elect politicians who will do a better job. That is how democracy works.
We have regulation to thank for child labor laws, the forty hour work week, Work safety laws, minimum wage laws, anti-pollution laws, drug safety laws, and many other laws that protect the public well being.
We are a democratic republic. We can change and improve regulations we do not like. Just because some regulations may be bought out by the industry they were meant to regulate does not make regulation a bad idea. It makes bad regulation paid for by big corporations a bad idea.
I like living in a country where I can vote to protect my interests and stop powerful people from screwing me over. I may not be that powerful, but by banding together with like minded citizens, I can protect my interests from even the richest and most powerful.
Isn't that nice? No matter how powerful someone gets, we, the people, are still, collectively, more powerful. If we decide we don't want CEOs making billions while main street starves, BOOM! we can just make it so. Even if those CEOs don't want to give up their unjustly stolen wealth, with a vote, we can just take it back from them, 99% marginal tax rate, BOOM!, higher taxes on all houses over 4,000 square feet, BOOM!, luxury taxes on everything the rich buy, BOOM! we can just take it all back, and what can they do? Nothing.
Yeah, or the phony outrage over "Obama's Katrina," as if they give a rat's ass about the environment any other time. Or the deficit, we have to fix it except we have to maintain Bush's tax cuts to the rich, so the only way to do it is to gut social security and slash unemployment insurance.
See, they can't say what's really bothering them, so they have to make stuff up and it doesn't really matter what because they all know that when one of them says,"Obama isn't fixing Bush's mistakes fast enough," what they really mean is, "Obama is black. How is he in the White House? He's black! I want my country back. Someone stole my country and gave it to a black man, and I want it back, it's for me, it's my country and I want it baaaaaaaaaaack!"
The average non-filthy-rich Republican does not really want to slash social programs. He just doesn't want those people benefiting from them.
Slashdot Mirror
The UN can be, like Obama, both corrupt and ineffective, and diabolically genius at the same time. The rich can be corrupt plutocrats who purchase government wholesale, and an oppressed minority who desperately need tax cuts, all at the same time. Conservative thinking requires no logical connection between its premises.
No, "the market" is not designed or centrally planned. Individual businesses are. It makes no sense to say that, because the components of a system are designed, the system itself is.
Who said we have a pure free market? That isn't even the point. We don't have is a centrally planned economy entirely designed by an intelligent designer. Something far more complex than a human can evolve from much simpler beginnings, and the way the economy has evolved is very similar to the way other complex systems have evolved.
You chose a poor example. We haven't had a real free market here for decades after finding out the hard way that they're bullshit.
Whatever we do have here is in no way a centralized, planned economy, so it is not a bad example at all, especially considering the fact that fundamentalist Christians tend to be die hard supporters of the free market.
The steel industry had Andrew Carnegie, who put a lot of effort into developing it but did not 'plan' the industry. And even if we stretch the definition of "planned" to include Carnegie's work in the steel industry, it is obvious that no one planned the entire economy.
The point being, of course, that the economy evolves over time, and while a steel industry or an Internet might be crucial for where we are now, it was obviously not crucial back then. Other things took the place of steel. The steel industry developed to the point that it could take over those functions and do them better, and then it expanded into functions that didn't even exist before it developed.
The evolution of the economy works in a similar fashion to other forms of evolution, and demonstrates all the same principles that render 'specified complexity' a laughable concept in biological evolution.
As an added bonus, people who dispute evolution are almost always strong supporters of a free market and adamantly opposed to the idea of a centrally planned economy. So this analogy (which I WISH I could take credit for) is the perfect tool for making their little heads explode.
Well obviously the Illuminati control the free market if they are the ones who designed and created it full blown as we see it today. Complete with Internet and cell phones, because obviously the economy of today can not function without those. Busy guys, those Illuminati.
Too bad she will still be unimpressed by the hamster-sized organ between your legs.
The common hamster can grow to a size of fourteen inches in length, three inches across, and can weigh up to a pound.
Obviously, by your logic, a free market economy is impossible, Our economy is too complex to have evolved on its own. In fact, it is far more complex, with far more different parts, than a human being. It must have had a creator. If most any part of the economy, like the steel industry, say, were removed, the economy would not function. How did the economy function before there was a steel industry? Obviously, it couldn't, and therefore we have demonstrated irreducible specificated complexification or something.
All this free market talk is obvious bullshit, and we actually DO have a centrally planned economy because it is impossible for something so complex to have evolved without a central planner.
[Dr. Evil.] No, Mr. Powers, I expect you to die. Even after they pay me the money, I'm still going to melt every city on the planet with hot soupy magm, er, plasma. Release the preschoolers! Mr. Powers, you'll notice that all the preschoolers have laser beams attached to their heads...
I still maintain that Google has sold out to Verizon, that Google has no intention of EVER perusing network neutrality, and that Google does not give a rat's ass about net neutrality of any sort now that they own their own net.
Just think about all that wireless spectrum Google bought... and now they don't want wireless net neutrality. What a shocker!
You are not going to change my mind on this, and no one else is reading this thread anymore. You can keep on worshiping your corporate master, I'm sure they are not like any other corporation out there, and actually intend to keep their promise to do no evil. I'll be over here pointing out when people are being dishonest, selfish dicks.
So you are touting capitulation as a strategy? Because if we capitulate right at the beginning, it makes the fight easier? Good reasoning, that will surely get us wireless network neutrality someday.
But Google has provided reasons for not supporting wireless network neutrality, which means we will have to find arguments proving those reasons invalid. Google has played right into Verizon's hand on this one, providing them with ammunition in the fight.
Google has provided reasons for not supporting wireless network neutrality, and this reasoning will need to be overcome if we are to achieve it in the future. Google has hurt the cause.
No, because Google has provided reasons for not supporting wireless network neutrality, and they will have to argue against the rationalizations they have provided in the future if they want it.
Because they have provided reasons for not supporting it. Even if they change their mind now, they will have to explain why their previous reasoning is invalid.
Yes, but I disagree with their reasoning. In fact, we have more reason to cover wireless network neutrality. It is going to be a far larger market, it is a highly protected market without much real competition, and it operates over the public airwaves, over which the citizens of United States have undisputed authority. We have reason to regulate it, and authority to do so.
They did more than just say they won't address it now. They gave reasons for not addressing it, reasons that will form the precedent for not ever covering wireless network neutrality. If we accept their reasoning now, we have accepted it for all time.
No. Because Google has a lot of employees and fans who will support whatever legislation they propose, it is important that Google propose the right legislation. Google has now proposed legislation that does not cover wireless network neutrality. Wireless network neutrality is at least as important as wired. My fight just got harder.
What the jabberwocky said. Google said they would support legislation covering wireless network neutrality, and this piece of proposed legislation that they now support does not cover wireless network neutrality.
Google has a lot of employees and fans who will support whatever legislation they propose, so it is important they support the right legislation.
This isn't just some Google/Verizon deal, it is proposed legislation the two will be bringing before Congress. Google was pushing for complete neutrality on all networks, but now, Verizon has convinced them to back off. We do not yet have ANY network neutrality, which is why we need the legislation. This proposal does nothing by itself. It is a proposed piece of legislation, and thanks to Google caving in to Verizon, the proposal has been gutted of one of it's most important protections.
You may be happy to accept any handouts your corporate masters give you, but I will fight for legislation that protects my rights and interests.
It's right in the summary: "However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now,"
Google has agreed to Verizon's wishes, and Verizon does NOT want net neutrality. Meaning that, "for now" Google will not be supporting legislation to enact network neutrality for wireless networks. It's really very clear.
Okay, then what do you call it when someone says they support something, and then later they say they don't? Because whatever you call that, that's what Google is doing.
Courts can not make laws, without regulation, courts have no standing to prosecute. Contracts only protect the signatories, they do not prevent negative externalities. Competition does nothing to regulate business behaviors that are detrimental to society, in fact, it increases such behaviors as competitors screw over citizens in order to 'win.'
I will be satisfied with regulation that does what I want it to. If I do not get it, I will elect politicians who will do a better job. That is how democracy works.
We have regulation to thank for child labor laws, the forty hour work week, Work safety laws, minimum wage laws, anti-pollution laws, drug safety laws, and many other laws that protect the public well being.
We are a democratic republic. We can change and improve regulations we do not like. Just because some regulations may be bought out by the industry they were meant to regulate does not make regulation a bad idea. It makes bad regulation paid for by big corporations a bad idea.
I like living in a country where I can vote to protect my interests and stop powerful people from screwing me over. I may not be that powerful, but by banding together with like minded citizens, I can protect my interests from even the richest and most powerful.
Isn't that nice? No matter how powerful someone gets, we, the people, are still, collectively, more powerful. If we decide we don't want CEOs making billions while main street starves, BOOM! we can just make it so. Even if those CEOs don't want to give up their unjustly stolen wealth, with a vote, we can just take it back from them, 99% marginal tax rate, BOOM!, higher taxes on all houses over 4,000 square feet, BOOM!, luxury taxes on everything the rich buy, BOOM! we can just take it all back, and what can they do? Nothing.
You can't see it for the same reason fish can't see water.
I am reminded of the immortal words of Madge the Manicurist, who said, "You're soaking in it!"
Yeah, or the phony outrage over "Obama's Katrina," as if they give a rat's ass about the environment any other time. Or the deficit, we have to fix it except we have to maintain Bush's tax cuts to the rich, so the only way to do it is to gut social security and slash unemployment insurance.
See, they can't say what's really bothering them, so they have to make stuff up and it doesn't really matter what because they all know that when one of them says,"Obama isn't fixing Bush's mistakes fast enough," what they really mean is, "Obama is black. How is he in the White House? He's black! I want my country back. Someone stole my country and gave it to a black man, and I want it back, it's for me, it's my country and I want it baaaaaaaaaaack!"
The average non-filthy-rich Republican does not really want to slash social programs. He just doesn't want those people benefiting from them.